Kirkland v. Griffin

Background

Tarence Kirkland, representing himself and proceeding without paying the filing fee, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Wendell Griffin and Camilo Antonini. He alleged false arrest and false imprisonment arising from events that occurred in 2015. The complaint stated that the events occurred on November 30, 2015, while documents attached to Kirkland’s declaration stated November 30, 2014.

Kirkland filed the action on November 20, 2020. Because § 1983 claims in this case were subject to a three-year statute of limitations, the court ordered him to explain why the action should not be dismissed as untimely. Kirkland did not dispute that he filed late. Instead, he argued that the filing deadline should be equitably tolled—that is, extended because exceptional circumstances made timely filing unfair.

Kirkland’s Arguments

Kirkland asserted that he was incarcerated from July 13, 2016, through October 9, 2020, and was unable to file the lawsuit. He alleged that prison officials confiscated § 1983 forms he requested on four occasions. He also claimed that he had been falsely imprisoned under an illegal sentence and that he had been kept incarcerated past the time to sue deliberately. The opinion states that this incarceration resulted from a separate conviction and that Kirkland did not allege that conviction had been vacated, overturned, or otherwise reversed.

Kirkland further argued that he did not know the identity of Detective Griffin until Griffin testified at his trial in 2016. The court noted that, even accepting that allegation, Kirkland still did not file within three years of learning Griffin’s identity.

Court’s Reasoning

The court explained that equitable tolling requires a litigant to show reasonable diligence and extraordinary circumstances. Incarceration by itself does not toll the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims. The court also held that difficulty obtaining a complaint form did not justify equitable tolling because a self-represented prisoner is not required to use a particular form to file a § 1983 complaint.

The court rejected Kirkland’s allegations that he was falsely imprisoned or given an illegal sentence to prevent him from filing. It found that he did not allege facts showing that either defendant prevented him from timely starting the action or induced him through fraud, misrepresentation, or deception to delay filing.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), applying the required screening of a complaint filed without paying the filing fee. Judge Louis L. Stanton denied leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Kirkland a copy of the order and note service on the docket.